https://musicbrainz.org/release/ea0aba62-45ab-4c31-bd75-68d5ca91c1e1

Absolutely one of the best albums on the internet archives. This mash-up a variety of musical samplings makes a bold statement. You are either an artist or a salesman... not both.

The Founding Fathers wanted copyright laws that MADE SENSE
after dealing with lengths exceeding 150 years in Europe.
These laws stifled creativity because inventors couldn't
"build on someone else's discovery/idea to make a better
product because they simply couldn't afford to pay the
"holder" the huge sum of money they demanded for the use of
it.
That said...all you have to do is BUY would-be SENATOR
(like "Sonny Bono"), get him elected get him elected
(selected?) before the copyright dates expired and have him
"tack-on another extension" by attaching it to the
"prescription drug bill that gives seniors 25 cents off
each med (while upping the premium cost) and it will get
passed. Pre 1790...it was appx 5 years for a work-of-art
and 10 years for a patent...THEN, it went into PUBLIC
DOMAIN so others could enjoy the "art" AND to take an idea
a step further.
Now...let me tell you this...bands get about 9 cents per
tune. OF that 9 cents, they have to pay the record company
back for all the studio time and advertising....after that,
they OWE the record companies money!! The only way they made money was in their CONCERTS. Recordings just made $$ for the companies, NOT the artists!
It takes about 3 successful CDs before they can pay the recording company off....most bands never last that long. They are lucky to BREAK EVEN!
Enter the Internet! Artists could give their songs away as free downloads and GET FAMOUS. Then, people would come to their concerts and they would MAKE MONEY.
BUT...the recording industry doesn't get any money when this happens. This makes them mad. THey are trying VERY HARD to regulate the Internet so bands can't give away their songs....they would be out of business and the bands would still be making money....probably even more because of merchandising since they wouldn't be "under contract".
SO...what it comes down to...is WE DON'T NEED RECORDING COMPANIES in order to get our music out to the public anymore (like in hte early days). THIS IS A GOOD THING!!! We actually get money for performing our songs and the public gets free music! What's wrong with that???

This is funny and dare I say satirical.

Artist have every reasonable expection, to profit from the effort of their labors. Imagine how bland this world would be, if the artistic , detered by a firm promise of obscurity, and poverty, just didn't bother ?.
I don't work for free, and neither should they.I'm surprised at number of people that proclaim the banner of equal, and human rights, would advocate for the immorality of such slavery.
Suppose your employer suddenly announced at the end of the day that they have the right NOT to pay you?.Would you bother to show up for work the next day?
Those who can create, create.
Those who can't, plagiarize .
So quit yer bitchin.

In reply to Hankums above review:
The point the compilers are making is that as it stands copyright law is ultimatly a barrier to artistic freedom, to good examples contained on this compilation would be:
The track "Pycho of Greed" by Public Enemy was supressed and ultimatly deleted from one of their recent albums at the behest of Yoko Ono who insisted that it infringed the copyrights pertaining to the Beatles track "Tommorow Never Knows". Why? Because it features the same drone sound and drum patern as featured on said Beatles recording.
Now forgive me but can someone explain how exactly can you copyright a musical note or drum beat? It would have been interesting if someone other than the Beatles/Apple Corp/Northern Songs had tried such legal tactics. (See also Lucasfilm trying to sue Dr.Dre for use of the THX "Deep Note" audio logo at the begining of his "Dre 2000" LP!)
It is notable that the original Beatles and Rolling Stones tracks are both abcent from this comp...
Another example would be the track "Bittersweet Symphony" by the Verve which ended up costing the act 100% of there publishing royalties as the backing track interpolated a short snippet of melody from a dowdbeat orchestral arrangment of the Rolling Stones song "The Right Time"
Yes other tracks, such as "The Queen and I" by the KLF, "U2..." by Negative Land, "Alone Again" by Biz Markie, and "Ice Ice Baby" by Vanilla Ice, are all blatant cases of copy right infridgment, however in the first 3 cases was it reasonable for the "injured" parties involved to demand the withdrawal and destruction of said records? Of course not. There is space for a middle way and artists should be aloud to quot and borrow from other peoples work without fear of expensive and distressing legal cases.

Due to intellectual property laws? Oh, isn't it too bad that people just can't use any material any way that they want?